Oh the madness that is casting a comic book based film! Recently, we had two uproars from fans. The first was the announcement that Anne Hathaway was cast as Selina Kyle (mind you, the press release said nothing about Catwoman) in the next Batman film. The second is Henry Cavill as Superman.

It seems we go through this every time. It’s so rare that a casting decision is embraced by the fans when it comes to their beloved comic heroes. My question is, is it that Hollywood really casts the wrong people so frequently? Or is it that comic book fans are too choosy.

I think it goes without saying that no one actor is going to satisfy everyone. There will always be a group that complains. However, I think there should be more of a willingness to let physical appearances slide a little in comparison to acting prowess. Sure, Hugh Jackman isn’t as short and burly as Wolverine appears in the comics. But, who is? Danny DeVito? What Jackman lacks in mirroring the physical appearance of Wolverine, he makes up for with his performance. I really can’t imagine anyone else in that role now.

When I heard Edward Norton was going to be cast in “The Hulk”, I thought there was no way it was going to work. I just didn’t see him as Bruce Banner. I was wrong, and he was amazing. A lot of people whined about Heath Ledger as the Joker, and we’ve all seen how that turned out.

The bottom line is that there should be allowances by the fans when it comes to casting. Should someone who’s three feet tall play Beast? No. However, have some small measure of flexibility. I know we all want our fantasy dream team to grace the screen and fill the shoes of the characters we love, but until we’re all Hollywood movie makers, it’s not going to happen. You can scream and complain until you’re blue in the face. It’s not going to change things.

Let’s also look at the reality of the movie business. It’s precisely that: a business. The studios are out to make a commercially viable film, and with luck, turn it into a franchise. You may know the ins and outs of the characters, but the movie going public at large may not be that familiar. Studios have to make films accessible to the widest group of moviegoers they can. Without that income, they won’t be able to make any films in the first place.

Also, let’s not forget that even in the comic book world, origin stories and characters evolve and change. It’s a fluid world where very few things are locked in forever. Characters die, come back, become younger or older, change to villains, etc. Even a film that is true to a comic to a fault is going to catch flack from those who wanted to see the alternate story told.

It’s okay to not like a movie. It’s fine if you think it’s drivel or screws everything up. The brilliant part is that it doesn’t change a damn thing about the story you adore. You can still go back and read what you fell in love with in the first place. Plus, chances are, there’ll be another reboot in a few years you can complain about, too.

-

I was looking back through my old blog the other day, and happened across something I wrote a few years ago. Considering my post from the other day, I thought it might be worth drudging up and having another look at. I made some tweaks to it, but otherwise, the article remains intact. Please note that I am aware there are other women in Disney films. Maybe I’ll write a companion piece, but for now, it’s mainly the most prominent women.

Enjoy…or something…

A while back I read an article is titled ‘INTERMISSION: Other side of fairy tales can be disturbing’*. It’s not alone in it’s view of some Disney movies as I’ve heard the argument many times before, but it is the most current one I’ve seen and the one I’ll make the most reference to.

In any case, to recap, during the course of the editorial the author pointed out how many of the women in Disney movies are poor role models to the modern girl. While that may be in some cases, I don’t think the editorial gave a rounded perspective on the subject.

You have to understand that in some cases the women portrayed in the movies are dated. What is relevant and acceptable for one era of time can become completely unacceptable in the next.

To begin, let’s think back to Snow White. Snow White made her mark on the world back in 1937; a time when women were still largely playing the role of house wife. In the movie, Snow White is living under the rule of a jealous stepmother and has even been demoted in her own kingdom. However, she is content to do as she’s asked without losing faith that some day things will be better, and in her case, the hope that “Someday [her] prince will come”. After all, she is still a princess. Now, while the idea of waiting for a prince to make everything better may not be an ideal way of thinking for young girls today and may not be encouraged, the idea that even though things can get bad you should still hope for the best is a good way of thinking. The author of the other editorial also said Snow White “has the cheek to tell kids to whistle while they work”. Now I don’t truly understand how that is bad. Everyone has to work sometime, and isn’t it better to be cheerful about it?

Moving on.

The next Disney heroine to come along is Cinderella in 1950. In the history of women rights during the early 1950s, there are a few advances, but no really big turning points. While in between Snow White and Cinderella you have World War II which got women involved in the workplace, it was unfortunately a rather short-lived victory after the men came home from war. So the 1950s still generally shared the view that women are more likely to be in the house. Cinderella is very much alike to Snow White, however she does not actually become a princess till the very end of the movie. As with Snow White, she is put into a bad situation by a stepmother and yet the girl continues to dream of a better life while completing all that is asked of her. Relevant for the time, but not quite the appropriate role model for modern girls. Then again, there is still the message of hope and the idea that you make the best of what you have.

After “Cinderella” came “Alice in Wonderland” in 1951. Alice’s journey is a lesson rather than a hope for her prince to come. While Alice may be female, the lesson she learns is universal: while it may be okay to have fun, sometimes you need to reign it in, and when you “give yourself very good advice” you sometimes need to follow it to avoid trouble.

Next on our list is “Sleeping Beauty” in 1959. Again, we return to a princess story. However, I see and don’t see the conflict presented in this one as far as a role model for girls is concerned. While Aurora may not do much and may get her prince in the end, that’s just it: she doesn’t do much. I see Aurora as more of a device to push the story along. She is the least seen princess in any of the movies and the plot largely revolves around the prince, the villain and the three faeries. I don’t know that she has enough screen time to really affect young girls, but as I said before, I could still see this as being the movie with the most conflict in this topic.

The next actual princess to appear in a movie doesn’t show up until 1985 in “The Black Cauldron”. Most people tend to even forget about her and the movie in general; she doesn’t even hold the lead role. However, for what parts she’s in she sets a better and bolder example for young girls.

In 1989, “The Little Mermaid” made its Disney princess splash (pun intended) with Ariel. Again, we have a princess who is a dreamer but in a much more recent Disney movie. I’ve read that she is a bad role model as she exchanges her voice for legs to go after the prince of her dreams. I’ve always viewed this movie a little differently. Unlike the other princesses, she is the one to go after the prince rather than wait for him to come after her. Yes, she goes after a prince and not a high-paying corporate position, but she still has the nerve to do what it takes to get what she wants.

Only two years later in 1991 you get “Beauty and the Beast”. Belle, as most people forget, is not a princess in any part of the movie (unless she married the Beast when we all weren’t looking). She is a free thinker and a free spirit and, like most of the heroines before her, dreams for something more. She is not, however, dreaming for a prince but rather for adventure. She finds it when she goes to rescue her father and takes his place as the Beast’s prisoner. Never does she submit to him and is in most ways his equal. Yes, she finds love in the course of the film, but she does it while he is still a Beast and not a “prince charming”. Belle would win my pick for one of the best Disney female role models.

Directly after Belle we get Jasmine in 1992 with “Aladdin”. This is another in a line of increasingly bold Disney heroines. While she is a princess, she’s not about to become a prize. She wants to find love, and again that’s never a bad thing for anyone. Aladdin may win her over in the end and rescue her, but she does all she can and without the aid of a monkey, a carpet or a genie (and against a wizard I think she holds out just fine). There is no shame in being rescued if you have already done all you can to free yourself. Everyone needs a little help sometimes.

Again, after a short break, we get another princess in 1995 with “Pocahontas”. While not a well received movie, Pocahontas does something a bit different: she saves the man she falls in love with and in the end she actually doesn’t marry him. Again, this is another Disney female that doesn’t present a poor role model as far as I can see (I don’t know what happens in the sequel, and I don’t really want to find out).

Skipping along, I’m going to combine two lesser movies with bold Disney females: “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” in 1996 and “Hercules” in 1997. Both Esmerelda and Megara are a far cry from being princesses. They both have a past and are lacking any real taste for finding a man. Both do find one, and yes, both get rescued; but again they fight off what they can. Let’s face it, Megara was human and up against the gods and other supernatural forces. Esmerelda was up against an angry mob that was more than happy to kill her for being a gypsy. Those odds look even to you? Yeah, me either.

So, not the best of role models and not the worst.

However, the next in the line up is another of my top choices for best Disney female role model. Mulan showed her face in 1998 in a movie of the same name. What doesn’t this girl do? She goes off to war to save her father, she dresses as a man to get into the army, she learns to excel in the army, she beats the Huns once, is discovered but still goes on, beats the Huns again and has a man coming to find her! Mulan presents a very determined and very real female character. She faces the odds and wins, and in the end is well received for doing so.

The next two women of note are Jane in “Tarzan” (1999) and Kida in “Atlantis” (2001). Honestly, I cannot go nearly as far in depth with these two as the movies are ones that I don’t remember well, even though I’ve watched them both at least a couple of times. I do recall though that neither female was searching for her prince, nor did either of them just wait around for rescuing. They remain a very far cry from the first Disney females.

By modern standards, the women of Disney are not always great role models. Then again, there are a lot of things out there now that aren’t great either and that don’t have the legitimate argument of being from another era to back them up. Companies still make fashion dolls and baby dolls and kitchen role play sets for little girls. Are these positive for a girl’s development into a modern, independent woman? Why is it always that Disney princesses are thrown under the bus for negatively influencing girls? You have to realize that watching “Snow White” should be no different from watching something like “Wizard of Oz”. They are from a different moment in time and won’t always be reflective of our “modern” sensibilities. Take the films for what they are and work towards making the influences of tomorrow what you think they should be. As Andy Warhol once said: “They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.”

*Since this blog was from so many years back, I no longer have a link to the referenced article.

-

I recently read an article that I found a bit depressing, which said that Disney was closing shop on producing any faerie tale features for the foreseeable future. Essentially, they said they weren’t hitting the mark when it came to getting an audience outside of little girls. It also noted that while “The Princess and the Frog” was critically acclaimed, it was one of the poorest performers of Disney’s more recent faerie tales. However, I don’t think all of the blame can be placed on the genre of faerie tales and the idea that it’s burned out.

Disney has gotten dumped on a lot in recent years for the animated films they’ve been churning out. Disney hasn’t felt like Disney for a while it seems. “The Princess and the Frog” was the closest return to it that I’ve seen in a long time. Now, I’m not talking solely about a return to the princess line, I mean a return to the sort of enjoyable family movies that Disney has come to stand for over the years. Recent Disney films like “Bolt” just seem to be missing something.

I also think some people have unfairly bagged on Disney’s faerie tales in particular for a number of reasons. I believe one of the biggest reasons is that they don’t think about when the film was made. Historically, the Disney princesses/faerie tales have reflected the general mentality of whatever era they hit the silver screen in. This is why some parents get upset about characters like Snow White and Cinderella being bad influences on their daughters. They don’t stop to think about when the movie was produced and what the mindset of the time was. “Enchanted” came out not that long ago and poked fun at the classic Disney stories that preceded it, but still managed to be an amazing movie with a princess that could be a role model to a modern day girl. I think it stands as proof that the genre can still be done and be very relevant. I also know a lot of men who enjoyed the film. (Of course, it helps that Amy Adams was hot.) It wasn’t just for little girls.

I don’t think Disney should start thinking to themselves, “Gee, what faerie tale should we do now?” However, I don’t think they should absolutely remove them all from the table of possible feature films. They should be looking for the movie that will be the best one to make, princess or no.

I’m personally quite anxious to see how “Tangled” turned out. I know the project was practically scrapped and restarted to get it to where it is now. I’d love to see it be another win for Disney in the faerie tale category, and that might make them take another look at a couple of other faerie tale films they decided to wipe from their slate.

I know the bigger issue is that they don’t feel that they’re reaching a male audience as much as they would like, but “faerie tale” doesn’t automatically mean there will be a princess involved. That’s far too narrow a definition. A “faerie tale” can encompass a lot of things. Just take a look at all of the stories in the Grimm’s collection for starters.

I am still pro-Disney. I grew up on it, and the films of my childhood still hold a big place in my heart. In this economy, the dollars count, but better than money (to my mind) is lasting power. There are a number of Disney movies that weren’t commercial successes when they launched, but they stuck in people’s minds and are still a part of merchandise programs today.

I hope Disney sees that faerie tales aren’t dead. Like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty, they just need to be woken up again.

UPDATE: There was an update posted from Ed Catmull saying that the LA Times article was erroneous and that Disney faerie tales are “alive and well”. However, no real specifics were given. This leads me to wonder if it was solely a PR play or not. Only time will tell unfortunately.

-

I consider myself a “Harry Potter” fan. I’ve read all of the books as soon as I could get my hands on them. Spent many a night reading until my eyesight blurred the words on the pages to an undecipherable mess. However, I cannot stand the movies. This seems to be a point of confusion for a lot of people, so allow me to explain some of my feelings.

I really, REALLY wanted to like the films. When I first heard that “Harry Potter” was being made in to a movie, I was very excited. My excitement pretty much vanished half way into the first film. I think I dislike the films for a number of reasons.

First, I find the movies exceptionally boring. They seems slow and there is so much time devoted to special effects sequences when they could have allotted more time to plot and character development. As an example, think to the first movie and the sequence with the moving staircases. It really wasn’t necessary. What I found brilliant about the books (and what my understanding was) is that rather than physically moving, sometimes the staircases just lead you somewhere else. There’s not so much rhyme or reason to it.

Second, while I’ve tried to view the movies as their own entities instead of concentrating on how closely they follow the books, there comes a point where I can’t make that separation anymore. I don’t think any adaptation could ever truly live up to the magical imagery conjured in my mind by the books, but the movies fall far too short of that mark.

Third, a lot of the effects seemed really rubbery to me, when I know they could have been better. Think about it. The first “Harry Potter” movie and the first “Lord of the Rings” movie came out around the same time. Both had a troll in them, and the one in “Lord of the Rings” was rendered way better. Granted, they were two different creature designs, but I found the “Harry Potter” one lacking.

Fourth, some of the little things they changed bother me. Maybe there’s an explanation on the DVDs, but I don’t understand why they didn’t stick to Harry’s description in the book. We’re told time and time again that he has black hair, green eyes and a scar in the middle of his forehead. In the film, he has dark brown hair, blue eyes and a scar to the side of his forehead. Why? I know it may seem like a quibble, but what was really the point of the changes? Would it have been that hard to get some hair dye, a pair of contacts and shift the scar a nudge?

Fifth, is that I love the casting of the teachers but they always feel shoved into the background when they should be featured more as they are in the books. The casting of the teachers is where I think the movies do a smashing job, but we hardly see them it seems. In fact, there are a lot of important characters we hardly see. Case and point: the other contestants in the Twi-Wizard Tournament. They felt like such minor characters when they played such larger roles in the book.

Sixth, I have an issue that likely bugs me more than most other folks. I hate the design of the Lupin werewolf. The third book is my favourite in the series. I adore Lupin. It is made clear in the books that there are very small distinctions between a werewolf and an actual wolf. So much so that Snape makes them write a paper on how to recognize a werewolf. That says to me that it might be easy to get them confused. There is no way that grey, cracked out chihuahua of a werewolf is going to get confused with a regular wolf. It is hideous.

I know that books generally need to be condensed when they make it to the screen. I get that. I just felt that they condensed the wrong things and added others that were unnecessary or not even in the books. There is so much in the books already that I can’t imagine why they’d need to make up more.

I still want so badly to love the movies. I want to see what other fans are seeing when they line up at the theatre. Much as I try, I still can’t bring myself to enjoy them. I really, honestly think that they could have been so much better. If only I had a time-turner so that I could go back and ask them to make better movies.

-

While my allegiance obvious lies with werewolves, my love of vampires runs a close (but not too close) second. Let’s face it, vampires are pretty damn cool, and I am always down to chill with my blood-sucking brethren.

So why do I prefer werewolves? What about them is more appealing? Beyond that fact that I think werewolves have a more fascinating mythology and are often stylistically cooler, I would have to say sympathy and empathy.

Werewolves, on the whole, are people who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Characters like Larry Talbot and David Kessler were just normal guys to whom Fate dealt an unfair hand. Aspects of their lives were taken completely out of their control and they were tortured with the knowledge that there’s nothing they can do to stop it. (Be honest; who hasn’t felt that way at one time or another?) I think the ryhme from the original 1941 Wolf Man sums this up pretty well:

Even a man who is pure in heart
and says his prayers by night,
may become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms
and the autumn moon is bright.

Sorry Joe Shmoe, you are screwed.

To add to the above connection that some may feel with werewolf characters, I think it’s also pretty safe to say we’ve all felt our own inner “beasts” creeping up from our subconscious from time to time. Be it the flaring of a temper, feelings of jealousy or greed, or plain old bad-assery. Werewolves just take this a step further by physically transforming to coincide with the mental transformation.

Now with vampires, it seems to me that there are far less of the remorseful variety. There are definitely some, and even a few of the less sympathetic examples bear some form regret, but it’s not as amplified as it is with werewolves. Many of the daylight-challenged seem to take up the “well, a vampire’s got to eat” attitude. While all of this goes a long way as far as creating a truly terrifying villain, it also makes for a less relateable character.

Oh woe is me. I must kill you to sustain my immortal and sexy life. Boo hoo.

I am aware that there are numerous exceptions to everything I’ve stated above. The unwilling vampire recruit, Michael, from Lost Boys, and the violent Eddie Quist from The Howling are just a two examples. There’s also the neither here nor there “monsters” from origins such as the Twilight series. Still, you can’t deny the largely consistent depictions of werewolves and vampires across film, literature and more.

In the end, no matter which you prefer, vampires make bigger box office dollars. I’ve read numerous theories about this, but it really doesn’t matter. Vampires will always trump werewolves in terms of popularity.

Some things never change. (Well, the werewolves do…you know what I mean.)

-